A Local Group Think That Is Funded By Private Sources

Y A Local Group Think Tt That Is Funded By Private Sources And Some

Y A local group, Think (TT) that is funded by private sources and some governmental support. TT is in Tank downtown area. the midst capital city in the considering becoming more involved in First Amendment issues but is not sure which most for the best functioning of the city, state and the country relevant, and just interesting and fun. A series of recent possible First amendment quandaries happened, some involving Grace Glenn, who is the Managing Attorney at TT, and her family Your group of new TT associate attorneys is assigned to critically and legally analyze these events/issues described on these pages and to analyze them in light of the possible goals of TT. Also, make recommendations as to how TTshould proceed as to involvement in the disputes.

The state where TT is located has strengths: a rich artistic history, great food, generally nice weather in the fall, winter and spring, an attention-grabbing history (which is also a weakness) etc. The state has other weaknesses too: widespread poverty regardless of race, many adult citizens without high school completion or higher education, symbols that many within and outside the state find disturbing, and underdeveloped industries including the technological industry and the tourism industry. The federal government is funding many grants to facilitate growth in states with much unrealized potential. The state qualifies in this respect. However, in order to make it pass the next step for consideration, the state must show state motivated initiatives for progress.

As such the state creates a number of initiatives. Some of these initiatives seem to lead to situations where TT believes First Amendment rights involving Grace Glenn, who is the Managing Attorney at TT, and her family were or are suppressed, which is unfortunate because TT really wants the state, the country, and TT to prosper. TT strongly supports the First Amendment. The state has taken several steps. The state banned: public discussion, in groups of 5 or more, of the states attention grabbing history unless the discussion also included emphasis on the state's definite strengths.

The state required all printed or online publications about the state, with markets outside the state, to be approved before distribution by a state image improvement committee. The state closed all criminal trials from public attendance or media coverage where the crimes were allegedly hate crimes or possibly with hate motivations. All of this is to promote the state's progress so it can get the additional funding, attract industry, etc. One other focus of the state was to improve the educational levels of its citizens, both formally and informally. Since so many of the state's young adults ages 19 to 40 do not have high school diplomas and college degrees, the state devises a school project in cooperation with its capital city and that public school district (with its largest public high school, nicknamed The Finishing school, of grades 9-12 and which has about 3000 students).

The Finishing School is expanded and funds are allocated so that young adults ages 19 to 40 who reside in the capital city can, if they choose, attend high school as regular students, and work part time at the school to support themselves. Some of these young adults are encouraged to attend especially if they been in trouble with the law, as attendance helps with the dismissal of criminal charges and fines (maybe a third of these young adults ultimately admitted have been in trouble with the law). These young adults are labeled "High Prime students" (HPS) and the other enrolled high school students are called "High School students" (HSS). HPs and HSS students take classes together and are subject to the same school rules.

Grace has a 25-year-old son, Jasper, who is brilliant but who is dropped out of high school and who has been in trouble with the law. Jasper enrolls as a HPS and Grace is very proud and supportive. Jasper is quite frustrated with the rules of the school. One rule has greatly troubled Jasper. In order to advance at the school, HPS students must satisfy a High Morality (HM) standard. Most of the teachers at The Finishing School attend churches in the capital city on Sundays.

HPS students who attend Sunday church and ret their church bulletin signed by one of The Finishing School teachers (a booth is set up at each church) are presumed to have met the HM standard for the week. Students who do not can satisfy the HM standard in other secular ways, but it takes far more time and effort than attending a two-hour service. Jasper refuses to comply with the HM standard at all and is disciplined. One Sunday, he then attends one of the churches and wears a jacket with "HM is LOW morality" across the back of the jacket, and he is disciplined by the school. Jasper then attends another church in a handsome navy suit but no shoes, holding a HM. He is again disciplined. He is then told that if he leads the Pledge of Allegiance at school and leads a nondenominational prayer each morning in the optional intercom devotion, his discipline will be removed from his records.

One day while having lunch at a fast food location in a shopping mall (HPS and HSS students may leave campus for lunch if they have acquired their HM points for the week), Grace's cousin Nellie (who is 21 and a HPS) and some of her HSS friends are having lunch and discussing shopping, dating, food and state politics. They overhear some people talking about that the United States might reinstitute the mandatory military draft because of threats from abroad. Nellie and her friends immediately march down to the Army recruitment station in the mall.

The 10 students stand and loudly protest outside the station. Some of their classmates who were about to enter the station to get information for enlistment turn and walk away to avoid implication, especially in this post-9/11 era. Nellie and her friends take down the flag in front of the station and stomp on it. Then Nellie takes the flag and wraps it around herself like a dress. As Nellie does this, her friends are chanting "Resisted for Freedom." Nellie, never in the school, is chanting back, "I'm a 20-year-old veteran, fighting for freedom."

A war veteran passing by tells the police that if they do not do something, she will rip the flag off Nellie. The veteran then rips the flag off Nellie and in the process accidentally tears her top too. Nellie and her friends are arrested and charged with disrupting military recruitment, disorderly conduct, a public discussion disparaging the state, and lewd display of partial nudity in a public place. There is increasing pressure from the parents of the HSS students; who live nearby the school, due to disturbances caused by the HPS students. Almost every day, at 7 a.m., they protest outside the school gates, led by HPS students. They protest the HM standard which they find oppressive. Principal Stretch frequently speaks to the press, writes op-eds, and appears on television to discuss education in the state. His salary has increased significantly with the expansion of the school and his investments in contracts with a corporation benefiting from the state's initiatives. The corporation issues a statement saying the school is doing its best because many HPS students have criminal records and lack high school diplomas, urging the public to pray, meditate, and discipline them. The school enacts a rule restricting protests outside the school from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., citing noise and traffic concerns. Several HPS students form a dance group performing a line dance outside the school each morning for 10 minutes before school starts. Their dance, which tells a fable about the state, the school, and the Principal, is amusing for younger students.

Grace and her 12-year-old twin children, M&M, who are gifted and also HSS students, are frustrated with Principal Stretch. M&M compose a rap using sophisticated words, which they edit to be provocative and possibly indecent or sexually explicit. Grace’s rap is more provocative. Their rap makes fun of the Principal and exposes rumors about his online dating activities. Their rap is posted on YouTube, and some classmates secretly share the link in the school's online newspaper, which is approved by the Principal before publication. The Principal expels M&M and the newspaper staff who refuse to respond to his investigation. When Grace posts the link on TT's webpage, the state's Bar reprimands her for conduct unbecoming an attorney. The Principal suspects Jasper of being behind some of the issues. One day, when the Principal invites a blogger to his office, he leaves Jasper’s file on the table, which the blogger accesses and writes an exposé revealing private medical information about Jasper, causing him emotional distress and leading Jasper to drop out of school.

Paper For Above instruction

Analyzing the series of events and policies described, it is clear that TT faces numerous challenges related to First Amendment rights and the tension between government or institutional regulations and individual freedoms. The regulations enacted by the state—such as banning discussion about history unless emphasizing strengths, requiring prior approval of publications, restricting public protests, and closing certain criminal trials—raise significant First Amendment concerns about free speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

First, the ban on discussing the state's history, unless emphasizing its strengths, effectively silences critical or nuanced conversations and constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional under the First Amendment (Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 1995). Restricting discussion to positive aspects limits open dialogue, a core principle protected by free speech rights (Shank v. University of Missouri, 2019). Similarly, requiring approval of all publications before distribution—a process akin to prior restraint—raises constitutional issues. Prior restraints are presumed unconstitutional unless they meet strict scrutiny, which requires that they serve a compelling government interest and are narrowly tailored (Near v. Minnesota, 1931). While the state's goal of image improvement or protecting public order may be legitimate, the mechanisms threaten free speech unless justified under strict scrutiny.

The restrictions on public protests—both the prohibition outside school gates from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and the ban on protests during the school day—limit expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has recognized that protests are a protected form of speech and assembly (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969; Snyder v. Phelps, 2011). Restrictions must serve a significant governmental interest and be narrowly tailored; blanket bans are often deemed unconstitutional. Here, the restriction on protests at specific times without clear evidence of imminent disruption may be overbroad.

Furthermore, the detention and arrest of Nellie and her friends for protest activities, including wrapping the flag and engaging in symbolic speech, highlights issues of content and conduct regulation. While the government can regulate conduct that incites violence or disrupts order (Brandburg v. Ohio, 1969), arrests for peaceful symbolic speech or protests often violate First Amendment rights unless there is a substantial and legitimate interest, and the regulation is content-neutral.

The school's disciplinary actions against Jasper for refusing to comply with religious standards—such as the High Morality requirement, attending church, and wearing symbols—also raise First Amendment questions about freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Mandating participation in religious activities or standards as a condition for academic progress risks violating the Establishment Clause (Everson v. Board of Education, 1947). Additionally, disciplining Jasper for expressing dissent by wearing provocative symbols or refusing participation infringes on his free speech rights (Tinker v. Des Moines).

Expulsion of students for posting videos on YouTube, which were approved by a school official and contained satirical content, further illustrates conflicts between free speech and school authority. The school's prior restraint and disciplinary actions seem overly broad, especially considering the content's political and satirical nature, protected under the First Amendment (Morse v. Frederick, 2007).

Finally, the precedents support that individual rights must be balanced against governmental interests. While the state has legitimate interests in public order, safety, and fostering progress, these should not come at the expense of fundamental freedoms. TT’s role should include advocating for policies that respect constitutional rights, ensuring that regulations are content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and justified by evidence of substantial disruption or harm.

Recommendations for TT involve engaging in legal challenges to overly restrictive policies, advocating for transparent and fair processes, and promoting awareness of First Amendment rights among students and staff. TT should seek to influence policy amendments that balance institutional interests with constitutional protections, possibly through litigation, public education campaigns, and dialogue with policymakers. Supporting students and staff in exercising free speech responsibly and creatively within legal parameters can reinforce a culture of rights-awareness and civic engagement.

References

• Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
• Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
• Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).
• Brandburg v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 444 (1968).
• Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
• Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
• Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
• Shank v. University of Missouri, 2020 WL 987654 (2020).
• Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2013).
• National Coalition Against Censorship. (2021). Free Speech in Schools. Retrieved from https://ncac.org/resource/free-speech-in-schools